Clarence Thomas Goes Scorched Earth On Birthright Decision, Says It ‘Devalues American Citizenship’

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent against Tuesday’s birthright citizenship ruling, arguing that the decision “devalues American citizenship.”

Justice Thomas contended, “the Court has repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights … the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”

He continued,  writing that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was enacted “with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves.”

The high court determined that birthright citizenship continues to be the law of the land, effectively enshrining it in the Constitution through the 14th Amendment. “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” the six-justice majority found.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, argued: “If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design.” Meaning, anyone who is born in the United States, no matter their parents’ residency status, automatically becomes a citizen of the United States.

BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas pens a scathing dissent after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship.

Thomas accuses the majority of “repurposing” the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and… pic.twitter.com/uMEI9C1ct0

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 30, 2026

“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans,” Thomas writes, in reference to the 14th Amendment. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war.” The majority further contended that their survey of the writings from the Reconstruction era found little evidence in support of the government’s position.

However, Thomas said the evidence supporting limits on birthright citizenship was substantial, citing numerous lawmakers from the period, including Rep. John Bingham, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Sen. John Howard, and Justice John Marshall Harlan.

“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship,’” Thomas concluded his dissent by saying. “Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship. I respectfully dissent.”